Leader v Homewood

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date02 November 1858
Date02 November 1858
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 141 E.R. 221

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Leader
and
Homewood

S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 316; 4 Jur. N. S. 1062. See Ex parte Brook, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 109; In re Glasdir Copper Works, Limited, [1904] 1 Ch. 823.

[546] leadek v. homewood. Nov. 2nd, 1858. [S. C. 27 L. J. G. P. 316 ; 4 Jar. N. S. 1062. See Ex parts Brook, 1878, 10 Ch. D. 109; In re Glumlir Capper (Parki, Limited, [1904] 1 Ch. 823.] An outgoing tenant has no right to enter for the purpose of severing and removing fixtures after the expiration of his term, and a new tenant has been let into possession.-Qutere, whether a tenant holding over at sufferance would be entitled to remove fixtures'! This was an action to recover the value of certain kitchen-ranges and other fixtures and effects, the first count of the declaration being for converting and the second for1 detaining them. To the first count the defendant pleaded not guilty and not possessed, and to the second non detinet and not possessed ; whereupon issue was joined. The cause was tried before Byles, if., at the sittings in Middlesex after last Hilary Term, when the facts appeared to bo as follows:-The plaintiff' had for several years been tenant of premises situate in Mount Street, Lambeth, under a lease expiring at Michaelmas, 1857. In January, 1857, the plaintiff', who was desirous of renewing his term, entered into a negotiation with the landlord for that purpose. The negotiation, however, failed ; and the landlord finally, by letter of the 17th of June, declined to grant the plaintiff a fresh lease. His term being ended, and the plaintiff at first declining to give up possession, he was on the 12th of October served with a demand under the 213th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, and on the following day he quitted, and was proceeding, with the landlord's consent, to remove his goods. Certain fixtures (some of which had been severed and others not) and other effects being still upon the premises, the plaintiff, on the evening of the 14th of October, went with a van for the purpose of taking them away, when he found the front door fastened. He then applied to the defendant,-who had formerly rented a portion of the premises under him, and had on that day taken possession of the whole under an agreement for a lease from the superior landlord,-for leave to enter and [547] take the goods. The defendant refused to allow him to do so, saying that if he attempted to enter he would give him into custody ; and accordingly this action was brought. On the part of the defendant, it was submitted, that neither trover nor detinue would lie under the circumstances ; that neither would lie for fixtures not disannexed front the freehold (the presumption of law being, that, by leaving them on the premises at the expiration of his term, the tenant meant to abandon them to his landlord); that it lay on the plaintiff to shew that the fixtures in question had been disannexed; and that no such evidence had been given : and, further, that there was no evidence that the defendant had been guilty of any conversion. The learned judge left it to the jury to say,-first, whether the plaintiff had intentionally abandoned the fixtures in question, -secondly, whether the defendant converted thetn, intending to deprive the plaintiff of the possession of them. The jury found that the plaintiff had not abandoned the goods, and that the defendant had been guilty of a conversion, and they returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 1171., subject to be reduced...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Ex parte Charles Benjamin Gorely John Barker, a Bankrupt
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 10 November 1864
    ...v. Milne (7 C. B. (N. S.), 115); Ex parts Broadwood (1 M. D. & De G. 631); Ex parte Lloyd (3 Deac. & C. 765); and Leader v. Homewood (5 C. B. (N. S.), 546). [480] the lord chancellor. The first question depends upon the inquiry whether the 83d section of the 14 Geo. 3, c. 78, is of universa......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT